Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to take action on her concerns about the suitability of interim accommodation, withdrew two offers of accommodation, left her with no option but to return to her original property which is unsafe, failed to provide interim accommodation when she re-presented as homeless in 2019 and has taken no action to process her 2019 homeless application. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss B, complained about the way the Council considered her homeless application. Miss B complained the Council:
• failed to act when she raised concerns about the fitness of interim accommodation provided in 2018;
• unreasonably withdrew two offers of accommodation;
• left her with no choice but to return to her original property which is unsafe for her to live in;
• failed to provide interim accommodation when she re-presented as homeless in 2019; and
• has taken no action to process her 2019 homeless application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered Miss B’s comments on my draft decisions; and
• gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

5. Section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 says it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable this will lead to domestic violence or other violence against:
• (a)the applicant;
• (b)a person who normally resides as a member of the applicant's family; or,
• (c)any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with the applicant.
6. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 (HRA 2017) says if the local housing authority are satisfied an applicant is (a)homeless or threatened with homelessness, and (b)eligible for assistance, the authority must make an assessment of the applicant’s case.
7. The HRA 2017 says the authority’s assessment of the applicant’s case must include an assessment of:
• (a)the circumstances that caused the applicant to become homeless or threatened with homelessness,
• (b)the housing needs of the applicant including, in particular, what accommodation would be suitable for the applicant and any persons with whom the applicant resides or might reasonably be expected to reside (“other relevant persons”), and
• (c)what support would be necessary for the applicant and any other relevant persons to be able to have and retain suitable accommodation.
8. The homelessness code of guidance (the code) says every person applying for assistance from a housing authority stating they are or are going to be homeless will require an initial interview. If there is reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days the housing authority must carry out an assessment to determine if this is the case, and whether they are eligible for assistance. If the applicant is not eligible for assistance or if the authority is satisfied they are not homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, they must be given a written notification of the decision reached.
9. The code goes on to say the Secretary of State considers whilst advice and information services could be provided via an online process, housing authorities could not rely solely on such means to complete assessments into individual circumstances and needs for people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days. It says in most circumstances assessments will require at least one face to face interview. However, where that is not possible or does not meet the applicant’s needs, assessments could be completed on the telephone or internet or with the assistance of a partner agency. For example, an applicant who is in prison, hospital or in other circumstances where they cannot attend an interview, could have an assessment completed through a video link or with the help of a partner agency able to complete an assessment form, provide information and assist with communication where needed.
10. The code says there are a number of accommodation options for victims of domestic abuse and housing authorities will need to consider which are most appropriate for each person on a case by case basis taking into account their circumstances and needs. This may include safe temporary accommodation and/or a managed transfer.
11. The code says the reasonable steps a housing authority might take to help an applicant retain or secure safe accommodation might include provision of a sanctuary scheme or other security measures, assistance to find alternative accommodation, or help to access legal remedies such as injunctions where these might be effective.
12. The code says sanctuary schemes can prevent homelessness by enabling victims to remain safely in their home where it is their choice and is safe to do so. A sanctuary comprises enhanced security measures in the home which delay or prevent a perpetrator from gaining entry and allow time for the police to arrive. Use of sanctuary is not appropriate if the perpetrator lives at, or retains a legal right to enter the home, or if the victim continues to be at risk in the vicinity around the home.
13. The Council’s temporary accommodation allocations policy says accommodation offered may be within or outside the borough depending on availability and following a suitability assessment. It says the suitability threshold is lower for emergency (section 188) accommodation than for longer term (section 193) accommodation as the applicant and their household are likely to occupy emergency accommodation for a limited amount of time.
14. The Council’s policy says due to the high level of homelessness demand within the borough homeless households are usually accommodated first in paid nightly let emergency accommodation and then moved into longer term temporary accommodation.

Chronology of the main events

15. Miss B is a housing association tenant and has four children. On 9 April 2018 Miss B approached the Council as homeless. Miss B told the Council she was staying with her mother as she was fleeing domestic violence. A Council officer met with Miss B and discussed the possibility of returning to the tenancy with extra security measures. However, Miss B felt unable to do so.
16. The Council contacted Miss B’s housing association to find out whether she could seek a management transfer. Miss B’s housing association told the Council she could not.
17. On 24 April Miss B said she wanted to take up the offer of emergency accommodation. Miss B said she would prefer the accommodation in an area where her children could attend their schools. The Council agreed to contact Miss B the following week to arrange a time for a meeting to discuss an emergency placement. When Miss B did not receive any contact she contacted the Council on 2 and 9 May.
18. Miss B met with a Council officer on 14 May. The Council offered Miss B shared nightly paid emergency accommodation in Hounslow. Miss B refused the accommodation as it was too far from her children’s schools.
19. On 16 May the Council put together a personalised housing plan for Miss B and placed her in emergency accommodation in Croydon.
20. On 9 July the Council moved Miss B to new accommodation in Mitcham. Miss B reported problems with the accommodation on 10 July. Miss B told the Council the property was infested with rats and the balcony for the first floor bedroom did not make the property secure. I understand the Council passed those matters onto the landlord who took some action.
21. Miss B contacted the Council again on 17 July. Miss B told the Council she had not stayed in the property due to unsuitable conditions. An officer visited on 18 July. I understand following that visit the landlord sorted out the problems with the cooker and boiler.
22. Miss B reported a leaking the toilet on 24 July. The Council passed that on to the landlord.
23. Miss B contacted the Council on 22 August as she was concerned she had seen people in the area known to her ex-partner, although nobody had approached her. The Council explained most of its emergency accommodation was in Croydon, Lambeth and Southwark which were areas Miss B had said she could not go to. Miss B said her landlord had not yet dealt with the leak in the downstairs bathroom. The Council emailed the landlord’s agent about that.
24. On 28 September Miss B reported the boiler making her and her children cough and said it needed constant re-pressurising. Miss B reported treatment for the mice infestation had been carried out although the operative had said access points needed blocking. Miss B said the boiler firm recommended replacement rather than repair which was being chased up by the landlord. The Council agreed to advise the landlord to carry out further mice proofing.
25. On 4 October the Council told Miss B it would move her as soon as it could but because of the locations she could not go to it could take time.
26. Miss B reported no heating or hot water on 9 October. A gas engineer attended on 10 October and got the boiler working temporarily.
27. Officers met with Miss B on 12 October. The Council discussed alternatives such as getting a non-molestation order and the sanctuary scheme which would enable her to return to her housing association property safely. Miss B said she did not wish to return to the tenancy.
28. On 18 October Miss B reported the boiler still not working properly. Miss B told the Council she still had mice although the pest company was visiting on 20 October to fill the holes. The Council told Miss B it was looking for alternative accommodation but because she could not go to certain areas it was proving difficult.
29. In response Miss B told the Council she would consider accommodation in one room. The Council offered her that. However, Miss B said she wanted a house. The Council offered Miss B a three-bedroom property in Lewisham. Miss B said the property was too far away.
30. On 29 October Miss B told the Council the landlord had replaced the boiler but there were still problems with pressure, heating and hot water. The Council contacted the landlord to ask for an update on what it would do.
31. On 1 November Miss B reported problems with mice and said she wanted to leave. The Council offered her a three-bedroom property above a shop but agreed it was not suitable due to the stairs at the back. The Council then offered a two-bedroom property and asked Miss B to get back to it with her decision. Later that day Miss B said she would take the flat above the shop.
32. Miss B was due to attend the Council’s offices to sign up for the flat above the shop on 2 November. Miss B did not attend.
33. Miss B contacted the Council on 5 November to say she no longer wanted emergency accommodation and had returned to her tenancy. Miss B said she did not want to keep moving her children.
34. On 29 November Miss B’s housing association apologised to the Council for not completing the security works at Miss B’s property. The housing association told the Council about the works it intended to carry out. The Council chased the housing association about that on 20 December. The Council also contacted Miss B. Miss B told the Council she was happy to remain in her housing association property once it had completed the security measures.
35. Miss B told the Council about some outstanding security works on 14 January 2019 and the Council liaised with the housing association about that. Miss B confirmed on 21 January the landlord had completed the security works. Miss B told the Council she was happy to remain in the accommodation. The Council therefore issued an end of duty letter.
36. On 28 May 2019 Miss B contacted the Council again. Miss B told the Council about two further incidents of domestic assault at her housing association tenancy which she had reported to the police. Miss B declined an office based appointment. Later in the day Miss B attended the Council’s offices and was referred to the out of hours duty service to consider a placement out of office hours. There is no evidence Miss B contacted the out of hours team.
37. Miss B spoke to the Council the following day. Miss B said she blamed the Council for the incidents at her home as she had felt she had no choice but to return to her tenancy with safety measures in place and did not want to do that. Miss B also reported having an unpleasant experience in her last emergency accommodation. The Council reiterated the advice about emergency accommodation and suggested Miss B report the incidents of violence to her landlord.
38. On 5 June Miss B told the Council she was scared of her ex partner. Miss B reported she had locked herself out of the property and damaged the front door breaking in. Miss B raised concerns because her front door was not secure and the housing association could not properly fix it immediately. Miss B expressed concerns about being placed in accommodation too far from Sutton due to her children’s schools and the strain on her mental health. The Council explained it did not have a stock of emergency accommodation in the borough but if she provided information from professionals involved with her family the Council could send that to the medical adviser so any emergency accommodation would be in keeping with any assessed medical recommendations. Miss B provided some information the same day. The Council again advised Miss B to contact the out of hours service due to the time of day so it could carry out an emergency assessment to see if the Council could provide emergency accommodation. Miss B told the Council the following day she had not contacted the out of hours service as she had no way of travelling to do so.
39. On 24 June the medical adviser recommended emergency accommodation up to the first floor without a lift or any floor with a lift. The medical adviser did not consider Miss B needed to live in the borough for medical reasons.
40. On 27 June the Council offered Miss B emergency accommodation with shared facilities. Miss B declined. The Council asked Miss B if she would reconsider the offer on a short-term basis while the Council sought alternative emergency accommodation. The Council did not receive a response to its email.
41. The Council contacted Miss B on 23 July to set a time for a meeting. However, Miss B did not feel well enough to attend the Council’s offices.
42. On 24 July the Council told Miss B about a potential unit of emergency accommodation close to Mitcham which would be available shortly. The Council asked Miss B to come in and see the adviser so the Council could put her forward for the accommodation. Miss B told the Council she could not meet until the following week.
43. On 29 July the Council asked Miss B if she was available to meet the following day. The Council told Miss B the emergency accommodation it had previously referred to was no longer available.
44. On 1 August Miss B told the Council she could meet the following day. However, Miss B’s targeted adviser was out of the office.
45. Miss B asked for an update on 12 August. The Council told Miss B as she wanted emergency accommodation in specific areas it could take a while to identify a property.
46. On 16 August the Council discussed with Miss B her coming into the office for an appointment. Miss B said she did not feel up to it. The Council told Miss B if it identified accommodation for her she would need to attend the offices to complete the paperwork. Miss B said she would struggle to do so. The Council offered to complete a home visit to complete the paperwork but Miss B could not give a time. The officer left it with Miss B to let the Council know when she had a date available. The Council reiterated Miss B needed to engage with it if she was fleeing domestic violence and stating her property was not safe so the Council could provide support and assistance as the priority was to get herself and her children in a safe place. The Council followed that up with an email which stressed if there was a risk in the property which had resulted in the homeless approach it would expect Miss B to take up the offer of emergency accommodation in any area in which she would not be a risk.
47. On 12 September Miss B asked the Council when it would house her. The Council offered Miss B an appointment the following day. The Council also advised it could provide emergency accommodation. Miss B referred the Council to the concerns she had already raised about emergency accommodation. However, the Council told Miss B this was the only option, other than a management transfer. Miss B said she did not feel the offer of emergency accommodation was beneficial to her children.
48. On 17 October Miss B attended the Council’s offices without an appointment and her targeted adviser was not available.
49. On 22 October the Council told Miss B if she still did not want to accept emergency accommodation the Council would begin the prevention duty and complete a personalised housing plan. The Council outlined the housing alternatives available which included financial incentives for her to get a privately rented tenancy, making a homeless application to any borough of her choice to ensure she is in a safe area with her children, to accept an offer of emergency accommodation, to receive support to get accommodation in a women’s refuge, to receive support to help her with an application for a management transfer with her current landlord, to explore a reciprocal arrangement with the current landlord, to explore if there were any more safety measures that could be applied at her property under the sanctuary scheme and further involvement from the police to reduce risk and manage her safety. The Council explained it was exploring the possibility of a reciprocal agreement but said this could be a lengthy process. The Council reiterated providing emergency accommodation was the only immediate response to reduce the current risk. The Council again asked her for clarification on whether she would accept emergency accommodation.
50. The Council contacted the housing association about the possibility of a reciprocal agreement. When Miss B asked how long the process would take the Council told her it could not provide any timescales. The Council again asked Miss B on 25 October if she had any further thoughts about emergency accommodation. Miss B said she did not feel she could put her family through further temporary accommodation.
51. On 30 October Miss B contacted the Council about a property she had seen advertised which she was interested in. The Council explained that was a property advertised on the housing register which Miss B was not entitled to. The Council said it would identify a suitable property via a direct match under the reciprocal arrangement. The Council explained it did not have any supporting information which showed the need for a modified property. The Council asked Miss B for further medical information to support her medical need for specific modifications so the medical adviser and possibly the disability housing panel could consider those. The Council again said it could provide emergency accommodation if Miss B did not feel safe to remain in her property while the Council explored the reciprocal arrangement.
52. The current situation is Miss B remains living in her housing association property and I understand the Council is still considering the option of a reciprocal agreement.

Analysis

53. Miss B says the Council failed to act when she raised concerns about the suitability of interim accommodation. Miss B says she reported heating and hot water issues and a rodent infestation. Having considered the documentary evidence I am satisfied the Council followed those issues up with Miss B’s landlord. I note as a result of the Council’s intervention Miss B’s boiler was replaced and pest controllers visited the property on several occasions. I am aware those actions did not resolve the problems with the property. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council recognised that by offering Miss B alternative accommodation. Given the Council acted to resolve the issues and offered Miss B several alternative properties when the issues were not resolved satisfactorily I have no grounds to criticise it.
54. Miss B says the Council unreasonably withdrew two offers of accommodation. I can see the Council has made several offers of accommodation to Miss B since 2018. For most of those offers the reason Miss B did not move is because she declined the offers. There was, however, one potential accommodation discussed with Miss B in 2019. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council made clear that accommodation would only be available for a short period of time and Miss B was unfortunately unable to meet with the Council before the property became unavailable. I have found no evidence to suggest fault by the Council led to it withdrawing the property. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
55. I believe the other property Miss B may be referring to is a property offered to her as an alternative to the flat above a shop on 1 November. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council withdrew the offer of that property. Rather, the documentary evidence suggests the Council left it to Miss B to decide if she wanted to accept either property and she accepted the other one, although she did not then attend to sign up for it. I have seen no evidence to suggest Miss B said she would consider the other property. There is no evidence the Council withdrew it when it knew Miss B wanted to accept it. In those circumstances I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
56. Miss B says the Council left her with no choice but to return to her original property which was unsafe for her to live in. However, the evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council had offered Miss B an alternative property on 1 November 2018 which Miss B had accepted and was due to sign for on 2 November. The Council’s documentary evidence shows Miss B did not turn up for that appointment and instead contacted the Council on 5 November to say she had moved back into her original property. Given the Council had offered Miss B alternative accommodation which she had accepted I could not say it had left her with no choice but to return to her housing association tenancy. Clearly that was Miss B’s decision. However, I have found no evidence to suggest fault by the Council forced her into that decision.
57. Miss B says the Council failed to ensure the safety measures were put into place at her current property. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me it was Miss B’s housing association, as her landlord, that was responsible for putting in place the safety measures, rather than the Council. Despite that I am satisfied the Council continued to liaise with Miss B’s housing association to ensure the safety measures were put into place. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
58. Miss B says the Council failed to provide interim accommodation when she re-presented as homeless in 2019. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council offered Miss B emergency accommodation when she first presented as homeless and has continued to tell her it can provide emergency accommodation should she want to accept it. I am satisfied the reason the Council has not provided emergency accommodation to Miss B is because she has repeatedly told the Council she does not want to accept it. I understand Miss B’s reasoning for that given she has children and does not want to disrupt them. I also understand why Miss B would prefer to receive an offer of permanent accommodation. However, the Council’s procedure is clear homeless applicants will receive an offer of emergency accommodation, which is what the Council has offered Miss B. In those circumstances I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
59. Miss B is concerned the Council is making her complete the homeless process again in 2019 when she had already completed the process in 2018. I understand Miss B’s concern. However, Miss B’s 2019 approach was a new homeless application. Unfortunately that means the Council has to start the process again. I cannot criticise it for doing that.
60. I am aware though Miss B says the Council has taken no action to process her 2019 homeless application. What should happen when a person approaches the Council as homeless as described in paragraphs 6-9. As that makes clear, the starting point is for the Council to complete an assessment. The guidance also makes clear in most circumstances assessments will require at least one face-to-face interview. In this case the evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council has not progressed the case because it has not been able to set up a face-to-face interview with Miss B. That has either been because Miss B has not felt able to visit the Council’s offices, Miss B has attended the Council’s offices without an appointment on a day when officers are not available to take a homeless application from her or because Miss B has not been able to commit to a home visit. I understand Miss B is under significant stress. However, for the Council to complete a proper assessment it needs some cooperation from Miss B. As I am satisfied the Council has tried to make arrangements to meet with Miss B on several occasions I could not say fault by the Council was responsible for the homeless application not being progressed. As I understand it, the offer of an office-based appointment to complete an assessment or a home visit to Miss B to complete the assessment are still options available to her. Should Miss B want to pursue those options she will need to contact the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

61. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman